At one point she writes, "Your critics can actually teach you lessons your friends can't or won't. I try to sort out the motivation for criticism whether partisan, ideological, commercial, or sexist, analyze it to see what I might learn from it, and discard the rest." It would have been fascinating to see some evidence of this in the book.

Kind of surprising to see this kind of assessment of a Hillary product from Slate. I wonder how long it will take for someone to call the author a misogynist.

It sounds like the book is a banal, by-the-numbers corporate product that exists for boomers to swoon over. Like a Hillary Clinton campaign....

Fark It:At one point she writes, "Your critics can actually teach you lessons your friends can't or won't. I try to sort out the motivation for criticism whether partisan, ideological, commercial, or sexist, analyze it to see what I might learn from it, and discard the rest." It would have been fascinating to see some evidence of this in the book.

Kind of surprising to see this kind of assessment of a Hillary product from Slate. I wonder how long it will take for someone to call the author a misogynist.

It sounds like the book is a banal, by-the-numbers corporate product that exists for boomers to swoon over. Like a Hillary Clinton campaign....

I know plenty of people would like to see Hillary be President, but I've personally never been too thrilled with her. I'll hold my nose and vote for her anyway I guess.

make me some tea:Fark It: At one point she writes, "Your critics can actually teach you lessons your friends can't or won't. I try to sort out the motivation for criticism whether partisan, ideological, commercial, or sexist, analyze it to see what I might learn from it, and discard the rest." It would have been fascinating to see some evidence of this in the book.

Kind of surprising to see this kind of assessment of a Hillary product from Slate. I wonder how long it will take for someone to call the author a misogynist.

It sounds like the book is a banal, by-the-numbers corporate product that exists for boomers to swoon over. Like a Hillary Clinton campaign....

I know plenty of people would like to see Hillary be President, but I've personally never been too thrilled with her. I'll hold my nose and vote for her anyway I guess.

I feel the same way. I'm really lukewarm on her. But compared to anyone I can see on the other side...

I like Clinton quite a bit and I would vote for her over whatever crazy the GOP throws at us, but I'm frankly tired of 'centrist' presidents who favor deregulation and put the interests of big business over people for the sake of the almighty 'job'.

She's in many ways like Obama. I really like him, but he's really not done the progressive side many (any) favors of late. I understand he basically can't pass any legislation, and I like him as a human being and pragmatic, but he also should be putting up a much stronger progressive front against the GOP especially in an election year. And he should be giving the progressives something to fight for this election season.

OK now a little Obama rant:

Come on dude, make a stand and remove Tom Wheeler from the FCC chair position. No one in your base likes net neutrality except maybe a few f*cking telecom and cable execs who are playing both sides, and even though they have big pockets the people are still allowed to vote regardless of money.

The new EPA regulations? Watered down sh*t when you look at the timeframe and the potential loopholes, even the polluting power companies were like 'meh that's not too hard.'

Why doesn't he make more of a big deal about the healthcare/Medicare stuff? I mean you've got states that simply won't give poor people the time of day.

How about voter ID laws, Mr. President? Why can't we hear more about the justice department hitting those states like mine hard? How about your dont give a f*ck stance on privacy?

I'm somewhat convinced the media is to blame that some of Obama's policies and ideas aren't given the light of day. All the attention is on this stupid Bergdazi/Benghazi/VA whatever crap. But some of this stuff seriously needs to come to light.

I know he can do it. The work Obama did on selling healthcare to people really worked. He needs to start fighting back. The GOP is seriously going at him gangbusters right now and even his own party won't back him up.

In 2007, John Edwards had a rally in Berkeley, and hundreds showed up.In 2007, Barack Obama came to Oakland on next to no notice, and 15,000 showed up.In 2007, Hillary had a fundraiser in Pacific Heights for an unknown number of donors who paid unknown how many thousands of dollars each./There's a lesson in there somewhere about Hillary's idea of campaigning, for 2008 did not turn out for her as expected.

Benevolent Misanthrope:I feel the same way. I'm really lukewarm on her. But compared to anyone I can see on the other side...

Jesus I'm getting tired of voting for the lesser of who cares.

She still has to win the primary. I know people keep saying that if hilary runs everyone else will back off but I am not convinced that is what would happen. Other people will run and if there's one that's better than clinton she may not make it past the primary. It's not like it hasn't happened before. She was seen as pretty inevitable in 2008.

Ambivalence:Benevolent Misanthrope: I feel the same way. I'm really lukewarm on her. But compared to anyone I can see on the other side...

Jesus I'm getting tired of voting for the lesser of who cares.

She still has to win the primary. I know people keep saying that if hilary runs everyone else will back off but I am not convinced that is what would happen. Other people will run and if there's one that's better than clinton she may not make it past the primary. It's not like it hasn't happened before. She was seen as pretty inevitable in 2008.

Yes, we shall see. My guess is she learned a very valuable lesson from 2008 and will pick campaign staff who know how the hell to do it this time.

I'm not thrilled by a Clinton run either, but in terms of experience, she's better than Warren, I love what Warren is trying to do in the Senate, but she has zero foreign policy experience and the pundits will jump all over her for it. I think she can do so much more good staying where she's at.

Hillary has a long and varied experience. Of course, the Clinton name will alienate some voters and her personality is too abrasive to cajole needed compromises out of Congress. (Though, I don't think even Jesus could get our current legislature to compromise.)

bdub77:I like Clinton quite a bit and I would vote for her over whatever crazy the GOP throws at us, but I'm frankly tired of 'centrist' presidents who favor deregulation and put the interests of big business over people for the sake of the almighty 'job'.

She's in many ways like Obama. I really like him, but he's really not done the progressive side many (any) favors of late. I understand he basically can't pass any legislation, and I like him as a human being and pragmatic, but he also should be putting up a much stronger progressive front against the GOP especially in an election year. And he should be giving the progressives something to fight for this election season.

OK now a little Obama rant:

Come on dude, make a stand and remove Tom Wheeler from the FCC chair position. No one in your base likes net neutrality except maybe a few f*cking telecom and cable execs who are playing both sides, and even though they have big pockets the people are still allowed to vote regardless of money.

The new EPA regulations? Watered down sh*t when you look at the timeframe and the potential loopholes, even the polluting power companies were like 'meh that's not too hard.'

Why doesn't he make more of a big deal about the healthcare/Medicare stuff? I mean you've got states that simply won't give poor people the time of day.

How about voter ID laws, Mr. President? Why can't we hear more about the justice department hitting those states like mine hard? How about your dont give a f*ck stance on privacy?

I'm somewhat convinced the media is to blame that some of Obama's policies and ideas aren't given the light of day. All the attention is on this stupid Bergdazi/Benghazi/VA whatever crap. But some of this stuff seriously needs to come to light.

I know he can do it. The work Obama did on selling healthcare to people really worked. He needs to start fighting back. The GOP is seriously going at him gangbusters right now and even his own party won't back him up.

Agreed. I am rather dismayed at how "establishment" Obama has become... I understand that's probably something that has to happen to do any sort of business at all in Washington because the President isn't King, but damn. The whole system needs a reboot as far as I'm concerned. We're not gonna get that. Hillary will almost certainly not bring that either, no matter what she says.

Fark It:At one point she writes, "Your critics can actually teach you lessons your friends can't or won't. I try to sort out the motivation for criticism whether partisan, ideological, commercial, or sexist, analyze it to see what I might learn from it, and discard the rest." It would have been fascinating to see some evidence of this in the book.

Kind of surprising to see this kind of assessment of a Hillary product from Slate. I wonder how long it will take for someone to call the author a misogynist.

It sounds like the book is a banal, by-the-numbers corporate product that exists for boomers to swoon over. Like a Hillary Clinton campaign....

beakerxf:Of course, the Clinton name will alienate some voters and her personality is too abrasive to cajole needed compromises out of Congress. (Though, I don't think even Jesus could get our current legislature to compromise.)

Actually, I think her knowledge of where all the bodies are buried and what everyone wants can enable her to get Congress doing what she wants far better than Obama could. Obama's getting better, but Hillary wouldn't have had all of the trouble he had at first because she would have went after Congress with a stick and a cupcake.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge Hillary fan - she's too centrist for this point in our history, when the Overton window is artificially weighted so far to the right due to big moneyed interests and gerrymandering - she'll have to placate far more on the right than the left to get anything accomplished. But she WILL get stuff accomplished. Maybe not everything I want to see accomplished, and likely a few things I don't want to see, but more "stuff" will get done no matter what kind of Congress she has to deal with.

If Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden had a policy love child, I'd vote for him or her in a heartbeat.

Hillary Clinton is the end product of the American political system. A resume of pablum marketed to folks who are slowly convinced it's good enough. A vane petty egotistical amoralist who should never be given any measure of power.

I've been scorched by Hillary before. I got a rapid heartbeat from her Hillary brand vitamins, my 'Clinton Calculator' didn't have a seven or an eight, and Hillary's autobiography was self-serving with many glaring omissions. But this time, she's gone too far.

beakerxf:Of course...her personality is too abrasive to cajole needed compromises out of Congress.

Farker, please. She's actually milquetoast compared to almost everyone who's held the office. She only 'seems abrasive' because she's female and speaking from a position of power. Americans by and large are still not used to that.

make me some tea:Fark It: At one point she writes, "Your critics can actually teach you lessons your friends can't or won't. I try to sort out the motivation for criticism whether partisan, ideological, commercial, or sexist, analyze it to see what I might learn from it, and discard the rest." It would have been fascinating to see some evidence of this in the book.

Kind of surprising to see this kind of assessment of a Hillary product from Slate. I wonder how long it will take for someone to call the author a misogynist.

It sounds like the book is a banal, by-the-numbers corporate product that exists for boomers to swoon over. Like a Hillary Clinton campaign....

I know plenty of people would like to see Hillary be President, but I've personally never been too thrilled with her. I'll hold my nose and vote for her anyway I guess.

AtlanticCoast63:make me some tea: Fark It: At one point she writes, "Your critics can actually teach you lessons your friends can't or won't. I try to sort out the motivation for criticism whether partisan, ideological, commercial, or sexist, analyze it to see what I might learn from it, and discard the rest." It would have been fascinating to see some evidence of this in the book.

Kind of surprising to see this kind of assessment of a Hillary product from Slate. I wonder how long it will take for someone to call the author a misogynist.

It sounds like the book is a banal, by-the-numbers corporate product that exists for boomers to swoon over. Like a Hillary Clinton campaign....

I know plenty of people would like to see Hillary be President, but I've personally never been too thrilled with her. I'll hold my nose and vote for her anyway I guess.

make me some tea:I know plenty of people would like to see Hillary be President, but I've personally never been too thrilled with her. I'll hold my nose and vote for her anyway I guess.

I'm on the other end of that one. If the Democrats run Hillary it's the one thing that would actually put the ball in the GOP's court so far as getting my vote goes. All they'd have to do is not run someone actively stupid and I'd probably go back to (R) on the presidency. (Probably not on anything else, though.) I don't intend to vote for someone that voted for both PATRIOT and its renewal while in the senate and that was actively, unapologetically part of the deregulation blitz that bombed our economy. I'll take an untested new guy that leans right of me over that.

// Albeit, I'm not crossing my fingers on the GOP not running someone actively stupid/terrible, not after Palin and Romney. So the difference may be academic.

Agreed. I am rather dismayed at how "establishment" Obama has become...

Oh please. He hasn't "become establishment". He is simply overwhelmed by the job and is mostly in reactive mode. He did a crappy job of picking staff, they're not helping him. They all over the place, grinding their own policy axes. He just goes along. Obamacare was not his creation. It was a Pelosi/Reid joint. He simply went along. He is NOT a leader. He's just a bullshiater. Nothing more. And he's been sucking at that lately (West Point - "the purpose of the military is to protect the country" Really?) He has no real executive experience. He had no business getting elected president.

His foreign policy is completely unorganized and drifting all over the place. He has stepped on his own crank multiple times (Russia Reset! Redline! Asia Pivot!). Useless. And he's planting the seeds of a future war making the US look weak and indecisive. Russia's getting nasty, the Chinese are throwing their weight around, etc., because they have correctly assessed that Obama's an out-of-his-depth Pussy.

He IS the very definition of an Affirmative Action hire. The Washington/media establishment decided he was "good enough" to be President and overlooked his obvious inexperience, lack of executive experience, lack of serious domestic/foreign policy depth, etc. and smoothed the way for him. No serious reporting about his background, suppression of any media questioning of his abilities. It was decided that it was time for a Black President and that was that.

mark12A:Agreed. I am rather dismayed at how "establishment" Obama has become...

Oh please. He hasn't "become establishment". He is simply overwhelmed by the job and is mostly in reactive mode. He did a crappy job of picking staff, they're not helping him. They all over the place, grinding their own policy axes. He just goes along. Obamacare was not his creation. It was a Pelosi/Reid joint. He simply went along. He is NOT a leader. He's just a bullshiater. Nothing more. And he's been sucking at that lately (West Point - "the purpose of the military is to protect the country" Really?) He has no real executive experience. He had no business getting elected president.

His foreign policy is completely unorganized and drifting all over the place. He has stepped on his own crank multiple times (Russia Reset! Redline! Asia Pivot!). Useless. And he's planting the seeds of a future war making the US look weak and indecisive. Russia's getting nasty, the Chinese are throwing their weight around, etc., because they have correctly assessed that Obama's an out-of-his-depth Pussy.

He IS the very definition of an Affirmative Action hire. The Washington/media establishment decided he was "good enough" to be President and overlooked his obvious inexperience, lack of executive experience, lack of serious domestic/foreign policy depth, etc. and smoothed the way for him. No serious reporting about his background, suppression of any media questioning of his abilities. It was decided that it was time for a Black President and that was that.

mark12A:Oh please. He hasn't "become establishment". He is simply overwhelmed by the job and is mostly in reactive mode. He did a crappy job of picking staff, they're not helping him. They all over the place, grinding their own policy axes. He just goes along. Obamacare was not his creation. It was a Pelosi/Reid joint. He simply went along. He is NOT a leader. He's just a bullshiater. Nothing more. And he's been sucking at that lately (West Point - "the purpose of the military is to protect the country" Really?) He has no real executive experience. He had no business getting elected president.

His foreign policy is completely unorganized and drifting all over the place. He has stepped on his own crank multiple times (Russia Reset! Redline! Asia Pivot!). Useless. And he's planting the seeds of a future war making the US look weak and indecisive. Russia's getting nasty, the Chinese are throwing their weight around, etc., because they have correctly assessed that Obama's an out-of-his-depth Pussy.

He IS the very definition of an Affirmative Action hire. The Washington/media establishment decided he was "good enough" to be President and overlooked his obvious inexperience, lack of executive experience, lack of serious domestic/foreign policy depth, etc. and smoothed the way for him. No serious reporting about his background, suppression of any media questioning of his abilities. It was decided that it was time for a Black President and that was that.

I'm not thrilled by a Clinton run either, but in terms of experience, she's better than Warren, I love what Warren is trying to do in the Senate, but she has zero foreign policy experience and the pundits will jump all over her for it. I think she can do so much more good staying where she's at.

Hillary has a long and varied experience. Of course, the Clinton name will alienate some voters and her personality is too abrasive to cajole needed compromises out of Congress. (Though, I don't think even Jesus could get our current legislature to compromise.)

On paper, Bush Sr. may be the most qualified President of our lifetimes.

Farker, please. She's actually milquetoast compared to almost everyone who's held the office. She only 'seems abrasive' because she's female and speaking from a position of power. Americans by and large are still not used to that.

LBJ and TR are pretty rare exceptions. The party shunted TR to the vice presidency because he was too abrasive and they wanted to get rid of him. LBJ seized the Vice Presidency because he thought it was his one last, desperate shot to put him in line to be President. He was also probably the singularly most abrasive person ever to hold the office. LBJs and TRs aren't common. Presidents who are, in their time, inspiring popular leaders who have no farking idea how to take Congress to task are far more common. Kennedy is a great example if you want to bring up LBJ. He was clueless. He had no farking idea how Congress worked, despite having served in the body for a decade. He didn't know where the bodies were buried, he didn't know where the levers of power were. As a Congressman and Senator, he was useless. He mastered the art of self promotion, but that was about it. As a President, he showed a lot oof leadership internationally. He had an idea what he was doing there. Congress? He and his staff had no farking ideas. He insulted committee chairs that Johnson later petted and placated. He simply had no idea how obstruction worked. He couldn't read what senior senators meant when they told him they'd look at a bill. When Byrd (the Virginia one, not the WV one) told him he wanted serious budget restraint or no Civil Rights Bill, Kennedy thought he was kidding, and just wanted window dressing. That's not to say Kennedy was particularly incompetent- he wasn't. He was typical. Historically, Presidents have not been entirely effective at managing Congress.

But I agree with the idea that the abrasiveness was effective in getting shiat done. LBJ got things through Congress that Kennedy never could have. His force of will, his personal manner, and his intimate knowledge of how Congress worked on a personal and institutional level really made him effective at bending Congress to his will in a way no President before or any President since has been. But that's not the only model. Lincoln largely won Congress over with charm and modest favors. He'd smile, laugh, ploddingly tell a rambling story, often with no relevance to the topic whatsoever, disarm a guy, and then gently ask for something. It worked for him, and allowed him to reconcile conservatives and liberals to a moderate policy that he deliberately evolved into a liberal one, bringing the conservatives along with him by winning them over to a cult of personality. LBJ could do that to, but underlying the stories was a personality where you knew that he would crush you if you did not comply. If you did not submit to him, you were not welcome, and that was made very clear.

The other big factor is that LBJ, as President, had overwhelming majorities for his party, he just had a lot of ideological diversity within his party. Most of his achievement was in hammering his own party in line, as was Lincoln's, since most southern members, the bulk of the Democrats, had resigned. That is a far different ask than trying to force members of the opposition party to your will. It is very, very hard to catch those flies, regardless of whether you're using honey or vinegar.

The bottom line is that it's really hard to compare Presidential styles, since the underlying dynamics are always different. Sometimes you can, but you keep running into the problem the stat heads who try to predict Presidential elections based on historical Presidential elections run into (major pet peeve of mine, BTW). There are too many variables and the sample size is way too low.

ox45tallboy:beakerxf: Of course, the Clinton name will alienate some voters and her personality is too abrasive to cajole needed compromises out of Congress. (Though, I don't think even Jesus could get our current legislature to compromise.)

Actually, I think her knowledge of where all the bodies are buried and what everyone wants can enable her to get Congress doing what she wants far better than Obama could. Obama's getting better, but Hillary wouldn't have had all of the trouble he had at first because she would have went after Congress with a stick and a cupcake.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge Hillary fan - she's too centrist for this point in our history, when the Overton window is artificially weighted so far to the right due to big moneyed interests and gerrymandering - she'll have to placate far more on the right than the left to get anything accomplished. But she WILL get stuff accomplished. Maybe not everything I want to see accomplished, and likely a few things I don't want to see, but more "stuff" will get done no matter what kind of Congress she has to deal with.

If Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden had a policy love child, I'd vote for him or her in a heartbeat.

Biden's two big platforms has been as a strong advocate for the continuation of the war on drugs, and the promotion of banks. Usury is currently legal in two states; Nevada and Delaware. Biden helped bring in the new bankruptcy laws in the middle 2000s that resulted in a record number of bankruptcies.

He is a banker shill and tool of the industrial prison complex that has turned our nation into something that is anything but free and just.

But since he is an asshole you guys like him. Since you're all assholes. And partisan tools.

Nemo's Brother:ox45tallboy: beakerxf: Of course, the Clinton name will alienate some voters and her personality is too abrasive to cajole needed compromises out of Congress. (Though, I don't think even Jesus could get our current legislature to compromise.)

Actually, I think her knowledge of where all the bodies are buried and what everyone wants can enable her to get Congress doing what she wants far better than Obama could. Obama's getting better, but Hillary wouldn't have had all of the trouble he had at first because she would have went after Congress with a stick and a cupcake.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge Hillary fan - she's too centrist for this point in our history, when the Overton window is artificially weighted so far to the right due to big moneyed interests and gerrymandering - she'll have to placate far more on the right than the left to get anything accomplished. But she WILL get stuff accomplished. Maybe not everything I want to see accomplished, and likely a few things I don't want to see, but more "stuff" will get done no matter what kind of Congress she has to deal with.

If Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden had a policy love child, I'd vote for him or her in a heartbeat.

Biden's two big platforms has been as a strong advocate for the continuation of the war on drugs, and the promotion of banks. Usury is currently legal in two states; Nevada and Delaware. Biden helped bring in the new bankruptcy laws in the middle 2000s that resulted in a record number of bankruptcies.

He is a banker shill and tool of the industrial prison complex that has turned our nation into something that is anything but free and just.

But since he is an asshole you guys like him. Since you're all assholes. And partisan tools.

It had everything to do with his race. Anybody who seriously questioned Obama's qualifications to be president were summarily dismissed as racists. Nothing more.

Japan's gonna rearm big time because China is getting randy, the South China Sea will be the flashpoint for the next big war between China/Japan/ Vietnam, because the Chinese have correctly assumed Obama and his team ain't gonna do jack to stop them, so they'll act like assholes until somebody starts a fight with them.

Ditto for Iran. The rest of the Middle East will arm up with nukes because the Obamessiah's admin doesn't seem interested AT ALL at stopping Iran from getting nukes. At some point Israel will pre-empt to prevent their own destruction. And the Middle East will blow up. All because of eight years of Amateur Night at the White House.